Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

From: Joe Abley (no email)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2006 - 01:00:53 EST

  • Next message: Christian Kuhtz: "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"

    On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:

    > Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
    > telling us to
    > "sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".

    Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
    few operators involved in designing it. This has evidently led to a
    widespread perception of an ivory tower with a moat around it.

    > This attitude combined with Shim6's (many) limitations speed it
    > toward irrelevance.

    To gain real relevance it needs to be deployed; to be deployed, it
    needs to be embraced by enterprise operators and content providers.

    If these operators dismiss it out of hand on principal, and refuse to
    actually find out whether the general approach is able to solve
    problems or not, then irrelevance does indeed seem inevitable.
    However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.

    How about some actual technical complaints about shim6? The jerking
    knees become tedious to watch, after a while.

    Joe

  • Next message: Christian Kuhtz: "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    		Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD